··6ii....WMhW&BR%W.'i 224 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC. SPRING 1994 irrigation-context examples were historic periods is also an important entirely consistent with the artifactual finding, not without relevance to con­ evidence from the open site excava­ temporary Hawaiian cultural prac­ tions. There is absolutely no basis for tices. Yet none of these or other major Anderson's claim that "many ofthe themes receive the slightest comment house sites, and the irrigation systems, from Anderson. Too bad. We are left were first occupied or constructed with the impression that an obsession prehistorically by people of undocu­ with radiocarbon dating, as demon­ mented identity." The only sites within strated by Anderson's work on New the study area occupied prehistorically Zealand moa-hunting sites, is the orga­ were the rockshelters, and the chronol­ nizing general perspective ofPacific ar­ ogy and sequence of their use is thor­ chaeology. oughly documented in Chapter 2 PATRICK V. KIRCH (vol. 2). University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Beyond having to expend valuable journal space on such a detailed refuta­ MARSHALL SAHLINS tion ofAnderson's unjustified criti­ University ofChicago cisms, we are deeply disappointed that .. Anderson's review accords no mention " at all of several broad anthropological History and Tradition in Melanesian themes resulting from this collabora­ Anthropology, edited by James G. tive engagement of archaeology and Carrier. Studies in Melanesian Anthro­ historical ethnography. For example, pology 10. Berkeley: University of the analysis oflevels of surplus produc­ California Press, 1992. ISBN 0-520­ tion, and of the sociology of canal 07523-4, ix + 257 pp, notes, bibliogra­ hydraulics deriving from the irrigation phy, index. US$38. system study (wrongly attributed by Kame'eleihiwa's review to sole author­ A critique of the ethnographic enter­ ship by Spriggs-it was a collaboration prise, which may be dated for conven­ by Spriggs and Kirch), are matters of ience as beginning in 1986 with the some significance for Hawaiian and publication of Clifford and Marcus's Polynesian prehistory. The radical Writing Culture, has flow spread to transformation ofland use in the upper works about Melanesia. (Make no valley following Kamehameha's 1804 mistake: the "anthropology" in this occupation is a matter that Kirch sub­ book's title really means "ethnogra­ sequently relates to other settlement phy." No serious attention is paid to transformations throughout the archi­ archaeology, much less biological pelago in late prehistory (2:53-56). A anthropology, though these subdisci­ further theme is that of architectural plines might tell us something useful changes in Hawaiian housing during about "history.") However, although the early nineteenth century, an issue the criticisms in the collection under largely ignored by archaeologists until review are sometimes phrased in such recently. The restructuring of burial trendy terms as "historicism," "essen­ patterns during the prehistoric and tialization," and "Orientalism," the BOOK REVIEWS 225 book's underlying argument is modest Thomas's chapter-"Substantivization and cogent, to "challenge an ... idea and Anthropological Discourse: The that anthropology in Melanesia can Transformation of Practices into Insti­ offer us the study of alien societies that tutions in Neotraditional Pacific are fairly untouched by social Societies"-is explicated in only forces" (3). slightly less ponderous text. However, This argument is developed in Car­ he does make an important point: the rier's "Introduction" in terms both role of colonialism in producing "es­ general (II-18) and specific to the sentialized constructs of selves and book's contents. To foreshadow a others within which particular customs point elaborated later in this review, .and practices are emblematic" (82). He I would note that he is careful not to ably illustrates this by drawing on his­ make claims for earth-shaking revela­ torical documents from Fiji, with tions, but rather admits (viii, 3, 7, 22) special reference to the practice of kere­ that some ethnographers ofMelanesia kere; his additional examples, recy­ have consistently paid attention to cling his reviews ofLinnekin's Hawai­ history and change. He further, and ian and Kahn's Wamiran materials, are wisely, distances himself from the most perforce somewhat less compelling. wretched excesses of"New Model Ethnographers who worked in Papua Anthropology" (read, "postmodern­ New Guinea may well be reminded of ism"), emphasizing that an exclusive the "Anthropology" section that young concern with rhetoric and discourse patrol officers were required to include not only fails to engage real issues of in their reports. Did their inquiries oppression but "merely parasitizes heighten or transform villagers' notions villagers in order to provide ... eth­ of kastom that subsequently became nographic texts" (17). part of modern rhetoric in Papua New Margaret Jolly's chapter then sets a Guinea? high standard for those that follow. It is salutary to have a contribution Using a severely critical reading (sof­ from a thoughtful historian like tened in the footnotes) ofAnnette Bronwen Douglas in a book ofthis Weiner's Trobriand ethnography as her kind. In "Doing Ethnographic His­ starting point, she not only advances tory," she warns that "the tyranny of the general argument ofthe book, but the ethnographic present in anthropol­ has extraordinarily valuable things to ogy is at least matched by the tyranny say about the necessity to incorporate of outcomes in history" (109). Thus change into feminist anthropology, the none ofthose, French or Melanesian, debates about "gifts versus commodi­ fighting in New Caledonia in 1868­ ties," and the current "invention of 1869 could know ofthe ultimate tradition" controversy. She brings to French conquest, yet histories are writ­ this, as to all her work, the sensitivity ten that interpret not only events but that "Melanesia" can mean more than motivations in terms ofthat outcome. the Highlands, the Sepik, or even all of Douglas's chapter is one ofthe more Papua New Guinea. narrowly focused in the book, empha­ The ponderous title of Nicholas sizing local detail over broader theoret- Ali ""IN 226 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC· SPRING 1994 ical considerations, and probably have consistently ignored the role that strengthens the volume's overall impact Christianity (in some form) has played for that very reason. and continues to play in Melanesian Carrier's concern in "Approaches to lives. Much of the existing literature Articulation" could hardly be more thereby seriously distorts the lived fundamental: to illuminate "the way reality of the people described. While that village societies are linked to and Barker's approach is perhaps not so interact with the larger social, political, "ideologically disinterested" as the dust and economic orders in which they are jacket describes this entire book, his embedded" (II7). He has written eth­ criticism seems undeniable. Max nographic accounts ofthis interaction Weber is reputed to have said that, in for the Ponam of Manus Province, matters ofreligion, he was the equiva­ Papua New Guinea. Here he mounts lent of tone deaf. When it comes to criticisms of a number of anthropolo­ perceiving the profound effects of gists (eg, Finney, Gregory, Meillasoux) Christianity in Melanesia,too many who have written about economic ethnographers seem deaf, blind, and change before he briefly (131-136) reca­ mute. Barker's otherwise lucid chapter pitulates the Ponam material. These is not always clear in his distinction criticisms are well taken, but one won­ between "syncretism" and "religious ders whether he has underestimated the pluralism," but this is more than com­ general difficulty of simultaneously pensated for by other valuable services paying adequate attention to both the he performs (eg, in directing attention macro- and microcosmic levels of mod­ to the work ofthose, like Michael ern Melanesian political economies, in French Smith, who have written with a single, manageable, and readable great insight about Melanesian Christi­ ethnography. (Compare the varied anity). approaches taken in Robillard's 1992 Roger Keesing's discussion of Social Change in the Pacific Islands.) "Kwaisulia as Culture Hero" is another None ofthe examples he provides has chapter rather narrowly focused, in as complex a history ofcolonialism in this case on Malaita. By effectively varied forms as, for example, Bougain­ combining his own research with that ville. None has felt the impact of ofPeter Corris and other historical multinational, high-technology enter­ documentation, however, he is able to prise. IfCarrier does not provide any use this case study to raise more gen­ neat answers to the problem of dealing eral questions about the constitution of with these more complicated cases, he leadership in Melanesia. His point that has certainly alerted future writers to "Modes ofleadership and arenas for the importance ofthe general issue of power were historically constituted articulation. and changing ... in Melanesia as John Barker here continues an argu­ everywhere else, political processes ment he has made elsewhere, most were characterized by flexibility and notably in the introduction to his opportunism" (187) should help to put edited volume, Christianity in Oceania aside sterile debates about ideal types (1990). His point is that ethnographers like "big men" and "paramount chiefs," BOOK REVIEWS 227 which obscure, rather than illuminate,